Talk:Levitron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the poet amongst us, might I suggest: "O the panderous drivel!"? Irrespective of the wording, your message prompts me to ask: What was your intent? Was it to suggest that there is tenacious, blind-eyed clinging to an encyclopedic summation that neither feeds the intellect, nor scratches the itch of curiosity, spurred by deference, even allegiance to the purported inventor? I have my doubts as to such motive; but it does seem the topic has stagnated, even devolved, despite ample room and the clarion call for amplification and refinement. Having a particular interest in the subject, one that has impelled me to write my own (non-Wiki) account, I feel compelled to check in from time to time. I also feel compelled to ask: Why is it that any reference to the discovery, the discoverers or the evolution of spin-stabilized magnetic levitation and its embodiment is promptly relegated to the historic repository? -- This, despite solid evidence of a history that is of jolting interest and of a breadth and depth vastly greater than that of the matter of litigation, one befitting an encyclopedia on the cutting edge. I'll refrain from applying my own editing touches to the article, for obvious reasons.

TgS, if you'd like to open up an e-mail dialogue, please let me know. Thanks, 66.6.176.23 01:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

People wishing to modify this article should do so only after familiarizing themselves with the litigation surrounding the trademark "LEVITRON", which was the subject of a US Court of Appeals decision in 2000, Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO, 235 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2000)(New Mexico). Earlier versions of this article contained external links specifically related to the trademark litigation. Citations to non-WP:V online materials prior to 2000 will be summarily deleted.--BradPatrick 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to insist that people "familiarize themselves with the litigation" just to edit the article. Wikipedia can use trademarks freely without the trademark symbol, because we're not selling anything. Look at any other article about a trademarked product, like Coca-Cola. —Keenan Pepper 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bill Hones owns the name "Levitron", but for the sake of historic clarity, both name and technology existed long before Mr. Hones "discovered" either. It is highly recommended that one read "The Hidden History of the Levitron" before drawing any conclusions as to the origin of name and device.198.50.63.15 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you cite that as a source in the article? —Keenan Pepper 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, henceforth I'll try to make it a point to summarize my editing in the "Edit summary" box. I'm still finding my way around the Wiki' landscape. 65.151.149.108 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Guided by what appears to be voluminous, highly credible evidence on the subject, I've attempted to convey a sense of the richness and breadth of the Levitron story. Apparently my entries have annoyed (and perhaps distressed) some to the point of censorship. Not one to squander energy and time on the "locking of horns", I concede defeat.198.50.63.15 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, wtf are you talking about. This is Wikipedia. Get used to it or leave. And stop being passive-aggressive. —Keenan Pepper 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what he's talking about is the wholesale wiping out of information, as opposed to reasonable collaborative give and take. You can understand that can't you, "dude"? If not, then perhaps you should consider the exit. And drop the psychoanalytical bullshit; it's obviously beyond you. 198..., my apologies for speaking on your behalf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.151.167.245 (talk • contribs) .

Information is never "wiped out" unless the article is deleted. It's in the history. —Keenan Pepper 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Focus Sir. Of course said entries are converted to "history", that's precisely the point. Until you decide (or evolve the capacity) to effectively address the issues at hand (rather than parse words and evade [or simply miss] meanings), you'll remain an integral part of the Wikipedia problem, driving away the very contributors capable of making this a reference worth the reference, just as you've done presently.65.146.213.165 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You've lost me. All I got from that was a vague feeling that you're trying to insult me. —Keenan Pepper 21:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the high quality of contributions made by Keenan Pepper to Wikipedia, I find the above critiques meritless. If the tone reflected in the above postings censuring Kennan also exists in the prior versions of the article, the problem is easy to spot. TheGreatScott

Thanks for your support, TheGreatScott. I'm working on a new version of the article that will hopefully please everyone, but I have my doubts... —Keenan Pepper 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your new article idea (Levitating magnetic top) best - and it allows for greater accuracy. Well-known brand names make good examples (Fender guitars), but you wouldn't find the history of guitars under the heading 'Fender'. Your solution of moving away from the trademark appears to be the best way to keep the focus on the physics involved. How about a concentration on the mathematical aspects? This may limit the number of contributors (not many have your background), but the resulting reference would be of very high quality. TheGreatScott

Oh, sorry, I didn't read your comment until I finished my rewrite. We can still split it out if necessary, though. —Keenan Pepper 00:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there are many brands of guitars, but I can't think of any other company that makes magnetic levitating tops. Just saying. —Keenan Pepper 00:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Keenan, excellent job on this. I really like the layout. TheGreatScott

[edit] Trademark versus actual thing

Am I going to have to start a new article, Levitating magnetic top? I really don't want to, but it looks like I'll have to if people insist that this article be only about the boring legal aspects of the trademark and not about the cool physics. Can we come to some kind of consensus here? —Keenan Pepper 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Earnshaw's law of 1839 is based on Gauss's law. The principle behind Earnshaw's law is that no combination of inverse square law forces can lead to a stability node that would permit static levitation. Irrespective of the fact that the levitron is spinning, it is still effectively in static equilibrium for the purposes of Earnshaw's law. An equilibrium node has been reached where the upward magnetic force is cancelled out by the downward gravitational force.

[edit] Earnshaw's theorem

Earnshaw's law cannot possibly break down because it is based on raw field theory. The only conclusion that we can draw is that the upward magnetic force is not an inverse square law force. See 'Gravity Reversal and Atomic Bonding' at http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe6.pdf Yours sincerely, David Tombe (124.217.43.44 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I've reverted your edit because it has all of the bearmarks of original reseach which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you can cite a reliable source for this then I'll not be inclined to remove it from the article. Thanks. (→Netscott) 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a known fact that when a bar magnet rotates on its north-south axis, the magnetic field does not rotate with it. The official explanation given for why the Levitron is allowed to break Earnshaw's law is that it is reacting dynamically with the magnetic field from the base. This cannot be a correct explanation. In actual fact, the spin of the levitron only serves to produce a gyroscopic stability preventing it from turning over, and it has got no bearing whatsoever on the magnetic interaction. From a purely magnetic perspective, the Levitron is to all intents and purposes in static equilibrium.

Earnshaw's law is based on Gauss's law and it states that no combination of inverse square law forces can produce static levitation. That is not original research. That is undisputed fact.

Hence, either the Levitron is breaking Earnshaw's law or else the magnetic repulsive force is not an inverse square law force. It has to be either one or the other. What would you think is most likely? I doubt if we need any citations for this. If we have two inverse square force laws and one force is greater than the other at a point in space, then it will always be greater because the two inverse square law graphs will never intersect. The two inverse square laws will be dropping off at the same rate and the greater force will always be ahead of the lesser force.

This is not original research. I am merely pointing out that the explanation for how the Levitron works is out of line with already established physics, and I am further pointing out that the raw facts leave us with only one solution. The magnetic repulsive force cannot be an inverse square law force. In other words, the Levitron really does work, and Earnshaw's law is not breached.

I should also remind those that attempt to explain the operation of the Levitron that since we are dealing with mutual repulsion, it means that the magnetic lines of force will spread outwards and away from each other between the Levitron and the base magnet. The Levitron, when levitating, will never actually get in amongst the field lines of the base magnet. Does this quote

" It depends on the fact that as the top moves sideways, away from the axis of the base magnet, the magnetic field of the base, about which the top's axis precessed, deviates slightly from the vertical. "  (copied and pasted from the official Levitron website)

from the official explanation look as if this fact has been taken into consideration?

Yours sincerely, David Tombe (222.126.33.125 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Please read this paper. (→Netscott) 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already read it. It doesn't change the crucial issue. If an up/down stability node exists between gravity and magnetism, then the magnetic force cannot possibly be obeying an inverse square law. That's all there is to it. Earnshaw's law is not defied. The problem lies with those who think that the magnetic force is obeying an inverse square law. David Tombe (222.126.33.125 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

David Tombe, other than yourself, who else refers to Earnshaw's theorem as "Earnshaw's law"? Find a verifiable reliable source that is saying this and by all means add it to the article. (→Netscott) 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not seriously going to let this degenerate to the depths of bickering over whether we call it Earnshaw's Law or Earnshaw's theorem, are you?

What kind of citation are you looking for? What about starting with the Wikipedia itself? Here you are,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem

It spells it out quite clearly. "applies to any classical inverse-square law force or combination of forces (such as magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields)"

If both the gravitational force and the magnetic force are dropping of with an inverse square law, then they will never intersect. This is form 2 mathematics. Nobody is disputing it.

The Levitron really works. The conclusion can only be that the magnetic force is falling off more steeply than the gravitational force, and hence it cannot be obeying an inverse square law.

Yours sincerely, David Tombe

Have you ever actually seen a Levitron in operation? Unlike say for example diamagnetically stabilized levitation wherein the levitating member remains static, the top actually moves (dances) while levitating. I'm sorry David but if you've got no citations for what you are saying here then it is just your own original research and doesn't qualify for entry into the article. (→Netscott) 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The motion that you are talking about is called precession. It occurs when a torque is applied to a spinning object at right angles to its direction of spin. This precession stops the Levitron from slipping sideways. It has got no bearing whatsoever on the up/down stability. The up/down stability is purely a balance between the magnetic force and the gravitational force. This is acknowledged on the official Levitron web site. Look it up under 'The Physics of the Levitron',

http://www.levitron.com/physics.html#1

It says "It hangs where this upward repulsion balances the downward force of gravity, that is, at the point of equilibrium where the total force is zero."

Then look to the paragraph 'Why doesn't the top slip sideways?' and see for yourself that they are only involving the precession for this purpose.

What more citations do you want? I gave you a Wikipedia citation stating the fact that Earnshaw's theorem is about the fact that a combination of inverse square laws cannot produce a stability node.

Is all this a storm in a teacup because of the fact that many of those citing Earnshaw's theorem have forgotten, or never knew the meaning of its origins in Gauss's law?

I don't care whether you put my views into the main article or not. The reason that I keep replying is because I can't belive how you fail to pick up on such a very simple point. That point is, that since we do have an up/down stability node, and since Earnshaw's Theorem cannot be wrong, due to its origins in Gauss's law, then it follows that the upward magnetic force cannot possibly be obeying an inverse square law. Call it an original observation if you like. But think about it yourself. So far, your replies have completely missed the point. You picked up on a trivia about me saying Earnshaw's law instead of Earnshaw's Theorem. You asked me if I have ever seen a Levitron. I've seen the video and read the rules. That's why I'm writing in about it. You gave me a web link to read, that I had already read. You have as yet failed to state your own position. Do you believe that the magnetic force is obeying an inverse square law and that this inverse square law curve is mysteriously crossing over and intersecting with the gravitaional inverse square law curve and hence breaking Gauss's law? I'll be interested to hear your answer to that. David Tombe (222.126.33.125 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC))